User talk:Ipigott: Difference between revisions

Archive 1: January 2007 to January 2010, Archive 2: January 2010 to January 2011, Archive 3: January 2011 to June 2011, Archive 4: June 2011 to November 2011, Archive 5: December 2011 to August 2012, Archive 6: September 2012 to December 2012, Archive 7: December 2012 to May 2013, Archive 8: June 2013 to November 2013, Archive 9: November 2013 to August 2014, Archive 10: September 2014 to February 2015, Archive 11:March 2015 to August 2015, Archive 12: March 2015 to August 2015, Archive 13: September 2015 to May 2016, Archive 14: June 2016 to December 2016, Archive 15: January 2017 to August 2017, Archive 16: September 2017 to March 2018, Archive 17: April 2018 to September 2018, Archive 18: October 2018 to August 2019, Archive 19: September 2019 to January 2020

Hi. I added a source to your stub above. I hope I did not mess up your editing with conflicts. I'll stop for the moment to let you edit. I did find this picture of her; not sure if it is usable per public domain. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your edit. I'll be expanding the article tomorrow but please feel free to continue editing now. It would be great if you could add your image.--Ipigott (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll look into the copyright when I get a chance. There seems to be a lot of material in French archives and museums. Extremely notable, good find! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo added, but please do see format it as you see fit!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. you had asked me to prepare a proposal to present to others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, to explain the changes that i wish to make, and to get their feedback and input, on what they think of the ideas.

I have prepared a brief, concise draft below.by the way, I have made a sub-section break for this draft, just to make it easier to edit; obviously, if you wish to remove the section break, that is totally up to you.

could you please let me know what you think? thanks!!

ok. what do you think? I have deliberately kept this very concise. I can add to it if you wish.

Also, for discussion of this proposal, there are various options as to where to discuss this. if you wish, I could set up a shared talk page in my own user space. or I could make it a sub-page of the WikiProject Council; however, before I would add any pages there, I would need at least some other editors who wish me to do so. Any options for this is fine with me.

Could you please let me know what you think of the ideas above? does this accord with what you wish me to present there? you had indicated a while back that you had some agreement with some ideas. I am willing to adjust or revise these in any way that you might wish. feel free to let me know which parts need changes, or need expansion, or need condensing; whatever you prefer is totally fine. I appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you work your magic on her? It needs to have British spelling, for which I am inept. Any ideas on what could possibly be used as images? If you are swamped, no worries. SusunW (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Perhaps you can use something from here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love that map of the whole area! Thank you, I'll do some more searching on commons too, to see what I might come up with. SusunW (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything usable on commons, but I did find some photos in the London Illustrated News from 1888 and put them on commons. Yay! I also finished the article on Thomas' daughter, if you'd like to give it a once over: Dorothea Christina Thomas. SusunW (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Maybe you can also use images from here.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through Dorothea Christina Thomas. There was very little to edit but I found it rather confusing that you have used "Gordon" to refer to her and "John" to refer to John Gordon. I wondered if it would be better in some cases to use "Christina" (or even "Christina Gordon") and "John Gordon" for clarity's sake. I think you are technically correct to use her "married surname" once she started to use it herself but the change from "Thomas" to "Gordon" upsets the flow. I'll leave any changes up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit it was a hard one to make it clear who was who. Since it is talking about their relationship so much, both of them appear far more often than a husband would otherwise. Then there was the whole problem with her mother being Dorothy Thomas, which I figured that referring to her by her surname or first name would also be confusing. Thanks for the review, I'll go back over it and see if I can make it more clear. SusunW (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You have been very helpful, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900: Thanks for informing me of your plans. Since the beginning of the year, you have come up with a variety of ideas in connection with WikiProject Council and WikiProject History. Initally I tried to offer support but was disappointed to see that interest did not extend to other editors. I have a feeling this may once again be the case here. I have begun to wonder whether the best way to draw attention to successful wikiprojects might not be to add items about them to Signpost or to have sessions on them included in Wikimedia conferences. As for Women in Red, we already have a pretty active discussion forum at our Ideas cafe. Nevertheless, if you are able to muster real support from at least six other editors, it may be worthwhile starting a new initiative along the lines you propose. But I should point out from the start that I am not able to devote much time to yet another venture. I'm always tied up with existing assignments. Of the options you suggest above, I think it would be best to start with something in your user space. By the way, you may be interested to hear that we have now decided to upgrade Women in Green to a wikiproject in its own right.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!! your feedback is extremely helpful. I will put you down as favoring a page in my own user space. as far as other editors go, the problem prior to this was that we never presented this idea by simply starting with the options as to where to put it. all we did was offer ideas on how to change WikiProject Council,. Since the problem there is that we need a consensus before we can make any changes at all, the best way to start is by making a new resource whereever others might want it, and then hold discussions after that as to where we shoiuld make any changes to existing changes.

I am going to tabulate the answers received on a page in my own userspace. I will also copy and paste people's replies including yours. I hope that's okay; if it isn't let me know. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi. this idea is now receiving a full and active discussion! you can participate at: Wikipedia: Village_pump_(proposals)#Idea_for_new_community_workspace. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott ! thanks so much for your recent post at Village Pump, regarding current group efforts at WP:Women in Red. As you may know, I am trying to develop an idea for a new community forum and bulletin board, that would help editors from differet WikIProjects to share information and ideas about current group efforts that they are part of. .

I am writing to ask for your help with this new idea. could you please draft a notice for editors to help out at the group effort that you referred to there? I think your main focus was various methods at Women in Red to promote article improvement and joint effort, such as contests,the need to improve articles on the Third World, and building interest in current developments such as elections or world conferences Feel free to add any other items, if I left anything out.

This is in order to post this info at the new user:Sm8900/community forum, if that's okay? and please feel free to add any comments, thoughts, or insights, to let us know more about the great efforts that you have been considering.

I am looking for editor events and group projects that I could post to post there, in order to get things rolling., my new approach to this is to approach editors individually, and request input and items from that we can post there, in order to get things rolling, and provide some content to show what we are trying to do. could you please let me know if that sounds okay to you? I really appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900: I am not too keen to contribute to your evolving sites until they show signs of acceptance and stability. Since 15 January, you have been extremely active on this page with one new proposal after another. While I wish you well with your ideas, I am really too busy with everything else to follow up on each new variation. Let's leave it for a month or two and see how things work out.--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds totally fine. I totally understand your point on this, and I totally get where you are coming from. I am very glad you took the time to write and to let me know how you feel. I will keep everything that you said in mind. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your suggestions. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I have finished with the parts I am comfortable with and now have entered uncharted territory. Can you look over what I have done and make sure I'm good with what I have done so far?

The links to the Monticello database go to a search engine. Is that acceptable? We have sources 15, 17, 22, 27, 34, 36 which tie to the Monticello database, which does not seems to be a significant portion of primary sources when there are over 40 citations in the article, but the MOS does say the information should be confirmed by secondary sources if that is possible. For example, 15 could be confirmed by [1], 17 is already backed up by 18, 22 appears to not have a secondary source to confirm it, 27 is confirmed by [2] and 34 & 36 are confirmed by the amount and names. Is this overkill, or do I need to ask for the database entries to be supplemented if they can be?

I think if I can figure this last bit out and read through the final changes it passes. Do you concur or is there something I have missed? SusunW (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: For a GA, I think the references to the Monticello DB are sufficient but it might be useful if you pointed out that there are other secondary sources (as you have above). References to databases are certainly acceptable and I don't really think that Monticello can be considered simply as a primary source for a historical article.

You have done an excellent job on the review, not just in the formal assessment process but by making a considerable number of constructive suggestions. As a result, the article is now significantly better and Carole is obviously pleased to have benefited from your assistance. I hope you found this an interesting experience. If so, you might like to take on other reviews of articles which seem to match your field of interest.

The only remaining problems with the article can be resolved with some minor copy editing which I would be happy to do after the review has been completed.--Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much. Totally appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this crazy poorly written stub and was totally fascinated. It could benefit from your eyes if you have time. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: You've done a fine job on this one and it looks like another good candidate for GA. But I think it needs an illustration for the lead - maybe the 1737 map if you can't find anything else.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help, Ian. I sort of stumbled across the photos I found. Wasn't able to search commons and find anything. I agree it should have something in the lede. I'll see what I can find. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding much, (oh how I wish I could find the letter she signed that said I am a free-born Negress") but there is a cutout of the section of that map that deals with Paramaribo. The article on her house in nl.WP shows it is on the corner of Wagenwegstraat, Malebatrumstraat and Heerenstraat. Unfortunately on our map the north-south streets aren't marked, but on another map, I discovered that Malebatrumstraat is the n-s street running for 2 blocks only (below the R and starting south at D). The only way I can see her house being on a corner of all 3 streets is that corner across from D. I think I could have the graphics lab mark that corner. Would that be an acceptable lede image? SusunW (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Maybe. Otherwise it might be easier just to include an old photo of the street such as this, where her house is on the one up the street on the right hand side.--Ipigott (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got sidetracked yesterday trying to get all those medical receipts together for my taxes. Huge job, but now it's done. I'm back on this today and we'll see where I get. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February

Alte Liebe I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses

A late Valentine for you: a bird that is normally only heard, acting on stage (well, it was the right balcony, to be precise, for most of the time, until she walked with Siegfried, carrying a little backpack) - the last reminiscence of the impossible made possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gerda. Very kind and considerate of you. We have about a hundred erantis in our garden in Luxembourg but they are far more common in Denmark. They are already past their best this year as it's been warmer than usual but we still have lots of snowdrops and crocuses. As for the bird, as usual you have done a fine job on Julia Bauer. Good to see you are also covering "living" opera singers.--Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - I prefer the living even ;) - When I wanted to enter her for WIR, she was already there, and probably thanks to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found my next victim and think that possibly this gives both her birth date and death date? I do not understand why the middle name is Deodata in the death record, but given that it shows her name, her husband's name, her mother's name and birthplace in Saint-Domingue, I'm sure it is my lady. (You don't have to pay, but you do have to register to see the record). Can you confirm that I am correct that this is her death record and the dates/places it gives for those events? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Sorry, I couldn't get into the site.--Ipigott (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more than one way to work around that. I snipped it and e-mailed it to you. SusunW (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Yes, it's definitely her. Deodata is a Dutch given name. The date of the death certificate is 1 December 1883. I'm not very good at interpreting the handwriting but I think it says she was 85 years old, born in St Domingo, lived in Haiti, widow of Jacobus Tinchant, daughter of Rosalig Vincent. Some reference to Ludovicus Francisus Tinchant 58 years and Franciscus Ernestus Tinchant 44 years, both merchants. In the LH margin, I think it says Rubenslei 4, born 1798. The certificate is from Antwerp. One of the signatures is François Ernest Tinchant. Hope that helps.--Ipigott (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deodata is the same as Dieudonné.--Ipigott (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was pretty sure I had found the correct record. Too many of the same names to be someone else. As always, your language skills are appreciated. SusunW (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Not just language but old Germanic cursive handwriting. I look forward to the full article.--Ipigott (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very difficult. Since you can confirm that Dieudonné and Deodata are the same seems to me there is no doubt. I think it was registered 1 December and that she actually died in November at "three and a half hours in the afternoon", but the actual date, I cannot make out. Just looks like a blob. But, that being said, I'm quite happy to have found years on her that are confirmed in an actual record :). SusunW (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: You're quite right, 1 December is the date of registration. The date of death could well be 29 November but as you say it looks more like a blob.--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished with the text. Haven't even begun to make a stab at looking for images. A couple of genealogical sites confirm the 29 November, so I'm going with that ;). If you have the time, I am sure it could use your skill in a copy edit. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this her? Would have to be loaded fair use, which I don't have a problem with, but I cannot read the text at the bottom. This is from 1885, no clue what it says, but definitely it is talking about the cigar business of the Tinchant brothers. What do you think about the photos? I don't think any belong to our family until page 449, but not being able to read the text hampers my evaluation. I'm also not sure about just using an ebay image of their cigar bands. Obviously it was advertising, and obviously printed and mass distributed, but does that constitute publication? SusunW (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW:The first photo is definitely her. Well found! There's absolutely no reason why you should make it fair use. She died in 1883 so the photo is at least 140 years old, probably more like 160. It's therefore a clear PD wherever it was taken (maybe Belgium). According to the website, it belongs to war diaries from 1914 to 1918 belonging to Raphaël Waterschoot of Sint Niklaas (a town in Belgium). You can see the full description here. It apparently was a gift from Philippe Struyf, a member of the family. The photos below show how big the factory was. There also this link. I'm not too sure which photo(s) you're interested in from the book but they don't look very useful to me.--Ipigott (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: The article looks reallt good now with the illustrations. Time for GA!--Ipigott (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Still trying to find a photo for the French part, could find nada for Cuba in the period. I was also wondering if I should upload the clip of her death record, since the theme of the article is how important documents were in their life. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW:More real illustrations would be good but hardly the death certificate. I always find it is rather morbid to find illustrations of graves, tombs and death certificates in our biographies. Maybe another legal document of some kind if you can find one. Otherwise pretty historic pictures of the places mentioned in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about this old map of Haiti/Santo Domingo?--Ipigott (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have another article for Woman in Green, Rebecca Lee Crumpler that I nominated for GA. I didn't start it, but I did a lot of work on in years ago and then a fair amount of work in the last day or so. Is this a good candidate for WP:Women in Green?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I vote yes CaroleHenson SusunW (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks SusunW!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already added it to Women in Green, so I guess we're good to go, as far as the nomination is concerned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no requirement to have it listed on Women in Green in order to nominate it. But it's useful to keep track on what's in the queue.--Ipigott (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson: I've done a bit of copy editing on the article. For a GA, there should be no refs in the lead. You should upgrade their equivalents in the body of the article to first occurrences. Otherwise everything looks pretty good.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! You always add a nice polish. Thanks much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159 Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Art+Activists & Folklore / Aviation / Great Britain & Ireland Photo and image initiative: #VisibleWikiWomen photo initiative Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, I merged the Turkey entries into it, i'd forgotten about that. It's jumped a 1000 odd now! Can you split the entries 3000-4000 onto a page like the others. I mixed up the Turkey articles a bit, some of them were done a few years ago, it might be best to move them to earlier in the lists. If you don't object we may as well merge the remaining Nordic ones now and just keep it as one list, Ramblersen isn't as active now and it's easier to keep track of on one page. I don't know when the last Nordic entry was merged, I know you've been adding entries fairly regularly. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I merged the Turkey entries into it, i'd forgotten about that. It's jumped a 1000 odd now! Can you split the entries 3000-4000 onto a page like the others. I mixed up the Turkey articles a bit, some of them were done a few years ago, it might be best to move them to earlier in the lists. If you don't object we may as well merge the remaining Nordic ones now and just keep it as one list, Ramblersen isn't as active now and it's easier to keep track of on one page. I don't know when the last Nordic entry was merged, I know you've been adding entries fairly regularly. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do

Dr. Blofeld:: OK. I'll look at this tomorrow. Some time ago, I tried to update both the Nordic and the European challenge with articles of mine that were missing. It's increasingly important to include Turkey now that Wikipedia access has been restored there. I don't think it matters much where the articles are placed as long as they are included. Both Ramblersen and I lost interest in the Nordic challenge when we reached the first milestone and there were no reactions. If you are going to show interest again, we might be able to attract a number of former contributors. I think we should maintain both the Nordic and the European challenge.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been interested in this but I can't commit to doing this full time long term. I get bored with doing something for too long and too consistently, even music! I think it's best to merge the Nordic challenge as I'm only likely to do the odd article. If we had at least 4 active contributors it would be worthwhile. I know in the past we had several people doing churches etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived it for you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld: I see you made the 3000 split yourself. I'll add recent articles to the European Challenge later.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved down the village to the bottom main list, you're not competing for prizes right? Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld No, I'm not competing for prizes but now I have no idea how to list my next one. It's a park! What is "foo"?

Ask PamD. :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bottom of the contest page, that's how it is done, very straightforward.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for your rapid response which did not really answer my foo question. I hadn't realized it would be so difficult to answer but perhaps it just means an English or other icon flag. Do you really mean I have to go right to the bottom of the page to see how to list an article? Not at all easy. Maybe I can just list any new destubs there (including women's biographies?) rather than where I added Wolviston. I had intended to add quite a few geographical articles but maybe it's better for me to get back to creating new women's biographies. It's obviously far more important to let the "real competitors" get on with it all. I'll add mine when the contest is over in order not to upset things. Sorry to be such a bother. I can see it's all going pretty well for all the others so don't worry about me. I think you're doing a great job on the geographical front. Even though the prizes are quite small, they are obviously attractive.--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the foo thing, Pam did. Do whatever you're happy doing, but adding articles to the bottom list is no different to adding them to the challenge pages except stating county of birth or location..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld: OK. I'll add the next ones directly to the bottom of the page. Sorry about the foo. Maybe you should simply delete it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me to WIR. Here's the first draft article that we've been working on:Draft:Maryana_Iskander. Is it possible for you to take a quick look and provide a quick read of whether we're on the right track? JRandomF (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JRandomF: You are certainly on the right track. I've moved the article to mainspace. I hope there will be many more. Let me know if you need further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is more than just destubbing, it's cleaning up articles too and ensuring it is fully sourced, no unsourced paragraphs etc. The recent one you did had some odd inline external linking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efficient checking. It was over C on ORES but apparently we're not taking that into account. I agree that there was a paragraph without an inline ref at the end. I've deleted it but at least it's no longer listed as a stub..--Ipigott (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Berta Pereira is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berta Pereira until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Marie Rennotte at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, Gerda Arendt: I can apparently not touch the DYK text but I would suggest "...that the Belgian teacher and physician Marie Rennotte (pictured) became a women's rights proponent in Brazil?" {cc SusunW) --Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the original wording? She was a vice president of the Paulistan Alliance for Women's Suffrage. Yoninah (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: Then you could call her a suffragist but I don't think there's any evidence of her demonstrating as a suffragette. See here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

... that the Belgian teacher and physician Marie Rennotte (pictured) became a women's rights activist in Brazil? Yoninah (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: Fine with me - and you can use the wikilink.--Ipigott (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott and Yoninah: Thank you both. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating woman. I think her whole family probably merits WP articles. (Maybe Gog the Mild knows someone who is interested in Russian military history?—the von Reisers served in almost every military conflict from Peter the Great's defeat of Sweden to the Seige of Warsaw. There's a whole chapter on them in "А.Д.Бутовского ВОСПОМИНАНИЯ / РУССКАЯ СТАРИНА, С-ПЕТЕРБУРГ, 1915г, Т.164." pp. 96-146 (correlates to PDF pages 105-155) and then a bunch in Астряб, Матвей Григорьевич (1923). "Общественные заслуги Райзеров" [Reiser Public Service. История Полтавы (in Ukrainian). Ukraine: Бориса Тристанова.], but one has to speak/read Russian to read the first one.) At any rate, can you give this one a copyedit? As always, the transliteration of names is confusing and I haven't yet looked for any other photos. SusunW (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a fairly good selection of photos. SusunW (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Another good discovery. Maybe Yoninah would be interested in including it in DYK for Women's History Month. Looks as if it could immediately be nominated for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As always, you improved it significantly. Thank you so much. She was a pretty amazing find. I do hope that someone along the way looks into her family for articles. They were equally interesting. I've nominated it for GA. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott, I'm delighted to see more articles on people in the textiles, but I'm concerned about naming children and giving their birth dates, for privacy reasons. I have removed the names and dates from Merete Erbou Laurent, leaving 'had two children'. If you object to my concerns, return the information to the article (but please don't just revert because I disambiguated a couple of terms.). Leschnei (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked to see if there is any current policy on this. The best that I could find is WP:BLPNAME - "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." Leschnei (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leschnei: Thank you for taking an interest in my articles and raising the problem of privacy in connection with the children of the subjects of the biographies of living persons. I must say this is the first time my attention has been drawn to this issue. I quickly checked the articles you have created yourself and discovered that in Alice_Ames_Winter (not in fact a BLP) children are also mentioned (although the addition was made by Rosiestep and they are probably no longer living). In the case of Erbou Laurent, the main source I drew on is [3] from the highly reliable Danish Kvinfo (Dansk Kvindebiografisk Leksikon or Danish Biographical Directory of Women). You will see the children are clearly mentioned near the beginning of the biography and also later in the text. Other established Danish and Scandinavian sources (e.g. Dansk Biografisk Leksikon) also systematically give details of family and children. It seems to me to be strange to disallow this information in Wkipedia when it is clearly presented in other established sources. If it is indeed the case that children should not be mentioned in biographies, then I'll have to go back over more than 1,000 articles and make sure their names are removed. I see however that your BLPNAME source also states "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced." I would argue that children are immediate family members in the case of Erbou Laurent. As she was married twice, it is also important to explain who was the father of each. If you think this issue is important, then it should probably be discussed elsewhere for comment and clarification. For the time being, I'll leave Erbou Laurent without the children's names but I would be interested to receive further reactions. It would also be interesting to know whether you have been deleting children's names from other biographies and if so how the editors concerned have reacted.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and for not taking offense at my concern - I think that I have may a bit too quick on the 'Publish' button which is what led me to leave the message here to begin with. I haven't been removing childrens' names as a rule and I don't believe that there is a hard-and-fast policy either way. For people who live their live in the limelight, like rock stars and actors, their family details are so widely known that I think it would be silly for Wikipedia to claim to be protecting their privacy. And for people whose children are dead, I have no concerns. What strikes me with Merete Erbou Laurent (and other articles) is that she is notable but not famous, and her children are neither (as far as I know). As you stated, the information is already out there and it is reliably sourced, but sometimes it just occurs to me that private people may not appreciate having their private details even more widely disseminated. That's just me, so put them back if you wish, and I won't object any further. Leschnei (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leschnei: Now that you have brought this up, I'll bear it in mind for future biographies. It seems to me it is not really just an issue for BLPs as non-notable living children can also be mentioned in biographies of people who are no longer alive. I have nevertheless quite often noticed that the people I write about have been briefly mentioned as children in other biographies. In such cases, I include wikilinks. If their names are removed, wikilinks are of course no longer so easy to add. But I can see there might indeed be privacy issues of concern in some cases. I suppose each case needs to be taken on its own merits. I see you are interested in textile artists. I've recently covered quite a few and will be writing about more, especially from Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries. If you know of any which deserve to be covered, please let me know. Thanks also for sorting out the disambs in Erbou Laurent. I usually wait for the bot to alert me.--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely keep you in mind if I run across any textile artists that I think you could write about, especially since I'm restricted to English! Leschnei (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leschnei. I tend to agree with Ipigott on this matter but like all things, there will be gray areas so if there are further conversations about including/excluding children's names (especially if the subject is a BLP) elsewhere, do consider pinging me. Though I rarely create a BLP (I commonly focus on pre-20th-century women), the issue of a subject's children, particularly if the children are living, is worth bearing in mind. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Rosiestep, though I'm not sure why I got this particular bee in my bonnet today. Leschnei (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marie Rennotte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Belgian teacher and physician Marie Rennotte (pictured) became a women's rights activist in Brazil? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Rennotte. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marie Rennotte), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grace Kodindo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2005 BBC documentary Dead Mums Don't Cry follows Grace Kodindo's efforts to stem the maternal mortality rate in Chad, where pregnant and childbearing women had a 9 per cent chance of dying? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Kodindo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grace Kodindo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angelina Atyam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Angelina Atyam was awarded the 1998 UN Prize in the Field of Human Rights for campaigning for the release of captive children, including her own daughter kidnapped by Ugandan guerrillas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angelina Atyam. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Angelina Atyam), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dorothy Thomas (entrepreneur), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former slave Dorothy Thomas purchased her own manumission, but later employed slaves as hucksters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Thomas (entrepreneur). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dorothy Thomas (entrepreneur)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your support with Art+Feminism 2020 in Malta, especially your input on the Adelaide Conroy article by a regular participant in these annual edit-a-thons. -- ToniSant (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToniSant: Much appreciated. I saw the editor also uploaded an image on Commons which could be added to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott, I don't see the uploaded image on Commons. What am I missing? --ToniSant (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToniSant: Sorry, my bad memory. It was not actually on Commons but here. It can obviously be uploaded and added to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I "think" I have adequately covered her career, removed the misinformation and cleaned up the citations. I've asked for help with the photos, as most aren't usable without more clarification on them. Can you give it a copyedit and advise if you think the lede covers the high points? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: It certainly covers all the high points, possibly at times in rather too much detail. The sentence "While in Congress in the late 1960s, she introduced the first comprehensive initiatives under the Early Childhood Education Act, which included the first federal child-care bill and bills establishing adult education initiatives, Asian studies, bilingual education, career guidance programs, Head Start, school lunch programs, special education, student loans, teacher sabbaticals, and vocational education." is particularly complex with its long string of details. Maybe you could simplify it as: "In the late 1960s, she introduced the first comprehensive initiatives under the Early Childhood Education Act, including the first federal child-care bill and several bills addressing adult education, Asian studies, school lunches and vocational training." You could even cut it into two sentences. Just a suggestion.--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've done an excellent job on this. As it's so long, it would be good to include more illustrations. GA first, FA later.--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Such an influential and prominent figure, especially with regard to civil rights. I figure if we are going for FA, there will be a whole lot of changes. I was trying to show how many levels of the US educational system she had a hand it. Hard to summarize such a long career. :P And yes, we need usable photos. I was so hoping someone would help with that, but it doesn't appear that I'm going to get help with them. Gamaliel found one, but I am very unsure of the rules on Congress people. How do we know it was taken with regard to their official duties by a staff photographer? That to me is a huge question. Will see what I can do today. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: There's no rush on this. I'm rather busy with other things at the moment but I'll see if I can help with illustrations later. When I was in Canada in the late 1960s, I worked closely together with a mature Japanese woman, who actually accompanied me on my first trip to Japan and told me in detail about all the problems she had faced, particularly during WW II when all the Japanese were sent to concentration camps. So I'm familiar with some of the history of all this. It is to Mink's credit that she did so much in support of the ethnic Japanese despite the feelings of many Americans in Hawaii during and after the war.--Ipigott (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: There's a photo under Related media on the House of Representatives site which is probably PD. I'm not sure how to check.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find about the image. The biggest problem I am having is that we cannot just assume that these were taken by government employees. I have written up a review of photos on the talk page and asked Carl Lindberg to take a look. He's an expert on mid-20th century images (and I think is in the DC area), so probably knows way more about it than me. SusunW (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So I'll leave it to him. The article is already looking better.--Ipigott (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope he's around and available. We'll see. I love the "baby" pictures I found for her. Hoping the graphics lab is able to fix the 1948 oratorical championship one. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Ipigott, I was looking to make Michele Adair's page. Have came across a little misunderstanding. Primarily there are two very important sources of information about Michele Adair. Here are the links (Link 1) and (Link 2). Now the problem is that I am confused if these two are the same people or not. My research says that they are but I want a second opinion. If you could give this a look and confirm to me that these are the same people that would be great. I am actually looking to make the most of this time in quarantine and contribute as much as I can. I have multiple project drafts in the pipeline and will try to run them by you soon. In the mean time can you please look into this issue. Thanks. ElricFullMetal (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ElricFullMetal: It looks to me as if there are two different people. Perhaps The Drover's Wife can help out?--Ipigott (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that they're likely the same person (unusual name, not that far apart geographically, similar professional background) but I can't prove it, in large part because the local-politician Adair was extremely vague about what she was actually doing professionally, which prevents me from definitively connecting them through jobs held (I ran a subscription news search for her).

I think the bigger problem, alas, is that even if we assume they're the same person and we could prove it, she probably doesn't meet our notability standards. The womenaustralia stuff seems largely ripped from an old personal website at the time she was active 15 years ago (it cites her website as main source, uses vague language like you'd expect from a campaign website, and doesn't mention that she ran again for state parliament four years later). Neither bid for office was very successful (3% each time) and she seems to have been a repeat failed local council candidate as well so "Michele Adair is a local and political activist who has achieved much success in her local area" seems like it's over-egging it a bit. There's quite a bit of media hits for her roles at Cystic Fibrosis NSW and The Housing Trust, but they're basically all her being a spokesperson about relevant issues and don't contain much about her. I'd also caution two things, from long experience in the area: 1) unsuccessful parliamentary candidates are generally held to be non-notable unless there's a strong basis for notability elsewhere, and b) the Australian Women's Register contains very many articles on non-notable women and probably isn't a good place to start from re: article generation unless there is an obvious claim to notability there. Sorry to not have better news! The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife Turns out it was a good idea after all that I didn't start with the draft then, lol. Thanks for all the help. Ipigott You, sir, are a lifesaver! Btw, should we then remove the red link altogether then? Thanks again for all the help guys. I will try to stay in touch for all further projects, if you don't mind?ElricFullMetal (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ElricFullMetal: - also just noticed that an article on her was unanimously deleted at Articles for Deletion a year ago on basically the same basis I said above, which is probably why there's a red link lying around. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife Ohhh. I see now. Thanks for letting me know. I cannot thank you enough for all the support and help. Much obligedElricFullMetal (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]